Judgment : ( 1 ) THIS appeal has been preferred by the appellant against the impugned judgment and Order of conviction and sentence dated 1/4/1998 passed by 4th passed by the Vth Additional Judicial Commissioner, Ranchi in S. T. No. 288/92 whereby and whereunder, the appellant was convicted for the offence under Sections 498-A and 307 of the Indian Penal Code and was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of three years for the offence under Section 498-A of the Indian penal Code and R. I. for a period of seven years for the offence under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code. ( 2 ) THE prosecution case in short is that the sister of the informant Mala Devi was married to the appellant Nand Kishore Sahu in the year 1976. After two years of marriage, the appellant started torturing and assaulting his wife. Subsequently, he left his wife in his in-laws place where she lived for about three years in between 1978 to 1980. Thereafter, a Panchayati was convened and in the said Panchayati, the appellant gave undertaking that he would keep his wife nicely and would not ill treat her and he took his wife with him. It was also alleged that the appellant had also kept a concubine since the last 3-4 years. Further case is that on 27/1/1990, the informant received a letter from the appellant in which, it was written that the informants sister had received burn injuries and she was admitted in the Nagarmal modi Seva Sadan Hospital, Ranchi. After receiving this information, the informant went to the said hospital and found his sister Mala Devi admitted in the Hospital having burn injuries above her neck and on her face. His sister Mala Devi told him that her husband (appellant) had poured Kerosene Oil on her body and thereafter, set her on fire. She also disclosed that she was being tortured and pressurised not to disclose this fact and she was also being given threats. Thereafter, the informant lodged F. I. R. ( 3 ) THE appellant was charged for the offence under Section 498-A, 307 and 324 of the Indian Penal Code. The defence of the appellant was denial of the occurrence and of false implication. ( 4 ) IN order to establish the charges, altogether four prosecution witnesses were examined on behalf of the prosecution. The defence of the appellant was denial of the occurrence and of false implication. ( 4 ) IN order to establish the charges, altogether four prosecution witnesses were examined on behalf of the prosecution. P. W.-1 Devbrath Sahu is the father of the victim girl. P. W.-2 Sudarshan Sahu is the informant i. e. brother of the victim girl, p. W.-3 is the victim herself and P. W.-4 is dr. Raman Kumar who attended the victim mala Devi in the Hospital. On behalf of the defence also, three witnesses were examined. ( 5 ) IT appears that during investigation, the victim girl also made statement under section 164 Cr. P. C. which was brought on record by exhibiting the same as Ext. 3. ( 6 ) ON the basis of the evidence adduced by the prosecution, the learned trial court convicted and sentenced the appellant as stated in the preceding paragraphs. ( 7 ) MR. Deepak Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the appellant, assailing the conviction and sentence passed by the trial court, submitted that though the prosecution, failed to prove the charges against the appellant beyond all reasonable doubts but even then the learned trial Court wrongly and illegally convicted him for the said charges. It is further submitted that there is contradiction in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses and further no independent witness was examined by the prosecution and therefore, on the basis of the evidence of only interested witness, the appellant could not have been convicted and sentenced by the trial Court. Lastly, it was submitted that the appellant has already remained in custody for 12 months and therefore, he has sufficiently been punished. ( 8 ) IN order to test the submissions made by the learned counsel for the appellant, it is necessary to examine and scrutinize the evidence led by the prosecution. ( 9 ) THE most important witness in the case is P. W.-3 Mala Devi, the victim herself. She has stated in her evidence that her husband asked her to bring money from her Naihar (parental home) and when she refused, her husband Nand Kishore Sahu (appellant) assaulted her, poured Kerosene oil on her body and then set her on fire due to which, she received burn injuries. She has stated in her evidence that her husband asked her to bring money from her Naihar (parental home) and when she refused, her husband Nand Kishore Sahu (appellant) assaulted her, poured Kerosene oil on her body and then set her on fire due to which, she received burn injuries. She also raised Halla on which someone came there to extinguish the fire but she became unconscious and regained senses only in the Seva Sadan Hospital. She further stated that her husband had done so in order to kill her. The victim has further stated in her evidence that on earlier occasion also, her husband used to insist upon her to bring money from her Naihar and in fact she brought money from her parent and handed over the same to her husband. But, after spending the said money, her husband again started torturing her to bring more money from her parents. She also stated that after the Panchayati, she was taken to her in-laws place by her husband but, her husband Nand Kishore Sahu again started torturing her. She also admitted to have made statements under Section 164 Cr. P. C. ( 10 ) P. W.-2 Sudarshan Sahu is the informant. He has stated that on getting information on 27-01-1990, he went to the seva Sadan Hospital and there, he saw that his sister was covered with Chadar (bedsheet) and she had burn injuries on her head and face and she was alone and nobody was there. Her sister disclosed to him that her husband had asked her to bring money from Naihar and when she refused, he assaulted her and then poured kerosene Oil and set her on fire. This P. W.-2 has further stated that his sister was being tortured by her husband since after two years of her marriage. He also corroborated the statements of P. W.-3 with regard to the Panchayati whereafter, her sister was again taken back by the appellant. This witness has further stated that the accused had kept a concubine and had sold the ornaments of his sister Mala Devi and then constructed a house for that concubine. ( 11 ) P. W.-1 Devbrath Sahu has stated in his evidence with regard to the assault and torture caused to Mala Devi by her husband (appellant ). This witness has further stated that the accused had kept a concubine and had sold the ornaments of his sister Mala Devi and then constructed a house for that concubine. ( 11 ) P. W.-1 Devbrath Sahu has stated in his evidence with regard to the assault and torture caused to Mala Devi by her husband (appellant ). He has also proved the letter ext.-1 said to have been written by the appellant to this witness demanding some money from him for doing business. It also appears from the said letter that the appellant had also given threat to this P. W-1 that if the money as demanded by him was not paid, his daughter would face the consequences. This witness has further stated that on getting information, he and Sudarshan Sahu p. W.-2 and some other persons went to Seva sadan Hospital to see his daughter Mala devi where she told him that she was burnt by her husband by pouring Kerosene Oil. He also stated that his daughter had burn injuries on her hair and face. ( 12 ) DR. Raman Kumar (P. W.-4), who attended the victim Mala devi in the Hospital has stated that he found burn injuries upon the face of the victim lady which, ac cording to him, was superficial approximately 5 to 7 percent. He proved the injury report Ext. 4. ( 13 ) ON behalf of the defence, D. W.-1 anant Kumar Keshri, D. W.-2 Mathura prasad Keshri and D. W.-3 Gandara Sahu, who are the neighbours of the appellant, have stated that they saw the victim lady mala Devi pouring Kerosene Oil herself on her body and thereafter setting herself on fire. D. W.-3 in his deposition has stated that the appellant had taken the second house and was living with his wife since his first wife always used to quarrel with others. ( 14 ) THE statements of defence witnesses are wholly unreliable in view of the fact that D. W.-1 has said that he saw Mala Devi pouring Kerosene Oil on her and setting herself on fire by means of Dhibri whereas, d. W.-2 has stated that the fire was caused by means of Match-Box. ( 14 ) THE statements of defence witnesses are wholly unreliable in view of the fact that D. W.-1 has said that he saw Mala Devi pouring Kerosene Oil on her and setting herself on fire by means of Dhibri whereas, d. W.-2 has stated that the fire was caused by means of Match-Box. It is surprising as to how these two witnesses saw the victim girl pouring Kerosene Oil and setting herself on fire while, according to them, the lady was pouring Kerosene Oil in her room and they could see from the outside without entering into the said house which does not appear to be believable. ( 15 ) THE statements of the witnesses made on behalf of the prosecution clearly establish the fact that the victim lady P. W.-3 was being tortured, assaulted and ill-treated by her husband (appellant) because of the non fulfilment of the demand of dowry and that he poured Kerosene Oil and thereafter, set her on fire, due to which, she received burn injuries on head and face. Therefore, it is clear that the appellant tried to kill his wife by setting her on fire by pouring Kerosene Oil due to non fulfilment of the demand of Jewry. ( 16 ) IN view of the discussions and findings above, I bold that the learned Trial court has vighily convicted and sentenced the appellant for the offence under Section 498 A and 307 of the India. i Penal Code and there is no infirming in the impugned Judgment so far the sentence awarded by trial Court for the said offences is concerned, I am of the view that considering the gravity of the offence committed by the appellant, the sentence does not seem to be excessive. Accordingly, by affirming the Judgment and Order of conviction and sentence dated 1/4/1998 passed by 4th passed by the Vth additional Judicial Commissioner, Ranchi in S. T. No. 288/92, this appeal is dismissed. The appellant who is on bail, his bail bonds are hereby cancelled and he is directed to surrender forthwith to serve out the remaining period of sentence. Appeal dismissed. --- *** --- .